SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, Petitioner, v. UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE, SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY, JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE, LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE, LUMMI INDIAN NATION, NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE, PORT GAMBLE S’KLALLAM TRIBE, SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE, AND TULALIP TRIBES, Respondents. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY RESPONDENT TRIBES UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE, SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY, JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE, PORT GAMBLE S’KLALLAM TRIBE, AND TULALIP TRIBES JAMES M. JANNETTA HAROLD CHESNIN Counsel of Record Upper Skagit Indian Tribe Swinomish Indian OFFICE OF THE Tribal Community TRIBAL ATTORNEY 11404 Moorage Way 25944 Community Plaza Way La Conner, WA 98257 Sedro Woolley, WA 98284 (360) 466-1134 (360) 661-1020 jj [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Respondent Counsel for Respondent Swinomish Indian Upper Skagit Indian Tribe Tribal Community [Additional Counsel Listed On Inside Cover] COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALl, COLLECT (402) 342-2831 LAUREN P. RASMUSSEN MASON D. MORISSET LAW OFFICES OF MORISSET, SCHLOSSER, LAUREN P. RASMUSSEN JOZW~AK & MCGAW 11904 Third Avenue, 1115 Norton Building Suite 1030 801 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-0900 (206) 386-5200 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Respondents Counsel for Respondent Port Gamble S’Klallam Tulalip Tribes and Jamestown S’Klallam Tribes QUESTION PRESENTED In 1975 the district court in United States v. Washington, W.D. Wash. No. C70-9213, a case involv- ing the treaty fishing rights of 21 Indian tribes in northwest Washington, made a factual determination of the Suquamish Tribe’s usual and accustomed fishing places (U&As). A tribe’s U&As comprise the area within which a tribe has a treaty right to fish and are based upon the tribe’s historical fishing pattern at treaty time. Twenty-nine years after the finding was made, Suquamish changed its fishing pattern and for the first time in all the intervening years began fishing in Skagit Bay and Saratoga Passage. The tribes with established U&As in those waters challenged Suquamish’s right to fish there and prevailed in the lower courts. The case presents one issue, which does not warrant this Court’s review: When confronted with interpreting the geograph- ic extent of a prior U&A finding in U.S.v. Washing- ton, may the court examine the evidence and record of proceedings before the judge who made the finding, including a bench ruling on the precise issue, to aid it in resolving whether a specific geographic area is within the tribe’s U&As, where the language of the finding is unclear and ambiguous as to the specific area involved, and where the record before the court reveals a latent ambiguity in the language? ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................. 1 A. Background on United States v. Washing- ton .............................................................. 4 l=~. This Proceeding ......................................... 4 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 9 I. The Language of the U&A Finding and Determination, Taken as a Whole, is Unclear and Ambiguous ............................ 9 I]. The Decision Below Does Not Conflict with Travelers Indemnity .......................... 14 A. This Case is Consistent with Travel- ers Indemnity ....................................... 14 B. Even if the Language of the U&A Finding Were Found to be Unambig- uous, the Decision Below Would Not Conflict with Travelers Indemnity ...... 15 C. The Decision Below is Narrow and Case Specific ........................................ 19 III., The Decision Below Does Not Create Conflicts with Other Circuits or Under- mine the Plain Meaning Rule ....................21 A. There is No Conflict Among the Cir- cuits ..................................................... 21 ooo 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Page B. The Decision Below Protects Finality and Repose ........................................... 25 IV. The Term ’Puget Sound’ is Ambiguous ......26 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 31 APPENDIX Map of Northwestern Washington (ER 0374) ...........la Map Used to Define Suquamish Travel U&As (ER 0453) .................................................................2a iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES: Ahern v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 133 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 1998) ..........................................23 Alstom Caribe, Inc. v. George P. Reintjes Co., lnc., 484 F.3d 106 (lst Cir. 2007) ............................22 Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010) ....................26 Ca~!ifornia Div. of Labor Standards Enforce- ment v. Dillingham Constr. N.A., Inc., 519 U.S. 316 (1997) ........................................................14 Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 57 F. Supp. 2d 228 (W.D.N.C. 1999) ......................23 Carcieri v. Salazar, 129 S. Ct. 1058 (2009) ...............26 Chemeheuvi Tribe of Indians v. Federal Power Comm’n, 420 U.S. 395 (1975) .................................18 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002) .......................................................................12 Corley v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1558 (2009) .........11 Dunlop v. Ledet’s Foodliner of Larose, Inc., 509 F.2d 1387 (5th Cir. 1975) ........................................22 Food and Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson T~bacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) ........................10 Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc., 930 F.2d 277 (3rd Cir. 1991) ...........................22 Gates v. Shinn, 98 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 1996) ...............22 Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88 (2004) .............................12 V TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued Page Kittitas Reclamation Dist. v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist., 626 F.2d 95 (9th Cir. 1980) ..........24 Markham v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ........................................................18 Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe (Muckleshoot I), 141 F.3d 1355 (9th Cir. 1998) ........................................................................20 In re National Gypsum Co., 219 F.3d 478 (5th Cir. 2000) .................................................................22 Negron-Almeda v. Santiago, 528 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2008) .................................................................22 Nehmer v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 494 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2007) ..........................................21 New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) .........29 Patch v. White, 117 U.S. 210 (1886) ...........................18 Reed v. Proprietors of Locks & Canals on Merri- mac River, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 274 (1850) ..................18 Richman Bros. Records, Inc. v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co., 953 F.2d 1431 (3rd Cir. 1991) ........................................................................22 Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (1997) .........29 Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) ........................................................16 Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Hermil, Inc., 838 F.2d 1151 (llth Cir. 1988) ...............................................22 Security Mut. Cas. Co. v. Century Cas. Co., 621 F.2d 1062 (10th Cir. 1980) ................................11, 24 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued Page Spearman v. J & S Farms, Inc., 755 F. Supp. ][37 (D. S.C. 1990) ...................................................22 In re Thinking Machines Corp., 67 F.3d 1021 (1st Cir. 1995) ..........................................................22 Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey, 129 S. Ct. 2195 (2009) ...................................................... passim United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673 (1971) .........................................................................6 United States v. Asarco Inc., 430 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2005) .................................................................21 United States v. FMC Corp., 531 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................21 Uniited States v. Georgia, 171 F.3d 1344 (llth Cir. 1999) .................................................................23 United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2000) ..................................................26 United States v. Morton, 467 U.S. 822 (1984) ...........18 United States v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Muckleshoot III), 235 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. den., 534 U.S. 950 (2001) ............ passim United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (1989) ........................................................18 United States v. Santos, 128 S. Ct. 2020 (2008) ........ 10 United States v. Spallone, 399 F.3d 415 (2nd Cir. 2005) ..................................................... 10, 11, 23 Uni.ted States v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 901 F.2d 772 (9th Cir. 1990) ..........................................25 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued Page United States v. Washington (Decision I), 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974) .............. 4, 19, 28, 29 United States v. Washington (Decision H), 459 F. Supp. 1020 (W.D. Wash. 1978) ...... 2, 10, 13, 17, 19 United States v. Washington (Decision III), 626 F. Supp. 1405 (W.D. Wash. 1985) ........................4, 19 OTHER AUTHORITIES: American